It's a strange grouping unless Wolfe is so far to the left that he sees all four as moderate conservatives, which is something of a stretch. But then, what are you going to do with someone who writes - apparently without grasping the incoherence - that Berkowitz "views Bush as a moderate and judicious politician, ignoring the president's efforts -- so discomforting to more principled conservatives -- to concentrate unchecked power in the Oval Office."

Still, he's not barking up entirely the wrong tree. One of the things that I appreciate about Ann's writing - more so scholarly work, but in other contexts too - is that even when I disagree with her conclusions, IME she writes in a way that leads the reader to think about the question in ways prompting new thinking, new connections, new questions. Which is, of course, exactly what one would think a good teacher does.

Well, read the whole article. I didn't, ASX, say it surprised me because I believe myself to be significantly less conservative than Brooks and Sullivan. It was more that I felt flattered to be included in such a group. I'm much less MSM and much less concentrated on politics.

ASX and AJD, I believe you guys are simply threatened by principled authentic liberals in the mold of Ann and Joe Lieberman, who just happen to deviate from the netroots norm in that they put the interests of the country ahead of mere partisan interests.

ASX & AJD: I recommend reading the article before commenting. The writer is a liberal defending himself against an unjustified attack from conservative Peter Berkowitz. He is complimenting Professor Althouse and the others on the superior way they debate polarizing issues.

Martyism is familiar to those of us living in Minnesota. It's got something to do with civic piety and self righteousness. Named after the foremost practitioner, John Marty, state senator and one-time gubernatorial candidate.

I would agree that martyism is: 1) piling up an impressive regular season record while routinely choking in the playoffs; 2) Calling excessively conservative, run-only plays late in the game that fail to control the clock or score points, thereby allowing the opposition to climb back into the game and win.

Martyrism has no known meaning; it might be a term used to describe a state of mind, like Wolfe's, in which one is deluded into thinking the intellectual cesspools and vitriolic, cannibalistic nature of the nutroots is more civilized than the conservative side of the blogosphere. See Rousseau's theory of the state of nature.

I'm surprised anyone got to the last paragraph of Wolfe's article. What a bunch of self-serving crap! I was not tempted to link to the offending article by Mr. Berkowitz, with whom I am not familiar, but the whole of Wolfe's tedious essay seems to be a personal gripe against Berkowitz misrepresenting his views. To paraphrase Col. Jessup, please tell me Alan Wolfe and the New Republic have more important things to publish than the whiny recriminations of a psuedo-intellectual. This guy needs to get out more!

One guy I've never heard of being accused of misrepresenting the views of another guy I've only read occasionally, and who is generally undistinguished. Maybe they should just have sex instead of subjecting their readers to their wounded pride and exaggerated egos.

I agree with Simon that it is odd that all four people that Wolfe noted are not really strong supporters of the President and in the case of Ann and Andrew Sullivan they are not even Republicans.

Wolfe, unfortunately fails to realize that there is a significant portion of the country that is far more conservative than any of the aforementioned commentators. Three of the four commentators are pro-gay marriage and very liberal on most social issues and the fourth, George Will, is more of a pessimistic defeatist than anything else. Going by Michael Lewis' depiction of Will in MoneyBall, where he the least free market approach to any of the participants in the MLB panel to fix baseball, Will seems more of a European conservative than an American one.

Perhaps Wolfe, may actually pick up a copy of the National Review or Weekly Standard, or read the Wall Street Journal's editorial page to get a better glimpse of conservatism in our country.

Just as a fyi, I have always found annoying that David Brooks is the supposed to be the Conservative at the Times. If you read any of his columns that focus on politics (which are not the majority), he tends to be more of a Lieberman Democrat than a real Republican. Usually he presents the Republican side and the Democratic side and that presents his view as the moderate alternative.

He is a decent columnist but does not bring much ideological diversity to a paper that has partisan firethrowers like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman writing op-eds.

Just as a fyi, I have always found annoying that David Brooks is the supposed to be the Conservative at the Times. If you read any of his columns that focus on politics (which are not the majority), he tends to be more of a Lieberman Democrat than a real Republican. Usually he presents the Republican side and the Democratic side and that presents his view as the moderate alternative.

heh. high comedy. brooks presents "both sides," but the "democratic side" is always some silly nonexistent caricature, and then he always picks the republican side as being right.